HS2 under review

[Mike Storey]

Extensive detailed flood modelling has been undertaken for hs2 and agreed with the EA. Lengths of viaducts, bridge opening, culverts sized so that the railway has no material impact on water levels upstream. In general, the works then do not encroach into floodplain. Where floodplain is encroached into by embankments areas of lowered ground are to be formed to provide compensation for loss of storage in the floodplain. All hs2 design takes into account climate change in accordance with ppg25 for developments, 20% for fluvial flow, 30% for rainfall. Outfalls from the railway drainage or other works are designed to limit outflows in 100 year event to no more than existing. Typically balancing ponds are provided to do this. There was specification requirement for water levels in 1000 year event to be no closer than 1m to rail level, to avoid floodwater contaminating ballast - very onerous and much more than say road drainage. I don't have knowledge of the route in the Chilterns, but based on what I have seen done, the argument hs2 will make flooding worse is complete rubbish and opportunistic scaremongering.

 

Absolutely right, although of course the "1 event in 100 years" etc base data may now have to change somewhat, but that is scant argument against HS2. (I have not seen any resident of the Somerset Levels blaming the railway line for their predicament.) The criteria to be used for designing overhead line electrification infrastructure resistance based on average wind speeds and extreme events using the 1 in 100/1000 year principle was radically re-thought after the 1987 and 1990 "events", especially to allow for more localised gusting, but the standards are still being revised, as they cannot keep up with the debate on forecast climate change (the argument for 1/1000 events appearing to happen several times in a decade have confused a lot of people). Here in France, the LGV OLE in the north has badly suffered on occasions over the last three months, whereas the classic lines OLE (as far as I can tell from French media) stood up well, being over-engineered some 40/60 years ago!

 

It will be interesting to see how the flood prevention funding debate progresses, once it all dries out (and if it does not all happen again before the 2015 general election). HMG claim that the capital funding they have provided is the maximum that is necessary and is all that could be used within the timescales of that budget. If some of their own MPs start to claim that funding should be diverted from projects like HS2, to increase that funding, how will they defend their previous assertion? The ongoing elephant-in-the-room debate has always been about protecting London (when to increase the size and scope of the existing Thames Barrier and how to mega-bucks fund it) but that would have done little to stop the recent flooding upstream, to which there appears to be little consensus on a solution.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not totally correct. Raising the Thames Barrier recently at each high tide gave capacity on the Thames in central London to absorb water from further upstream.  The flooding around Shepperton would have been much worse without it.

[The Stationmaster]

Not totally correct. Raising the Thames Barrier recently at each high tide gave capacity on the Thames in central London to absorb water from further upstream.  The flooding around Shepperton would have been much worse without it.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me - if the barrier had not been raised the high tide would have come further upstream and met the flood water coming down - basically causing flooding in parts of London itself or around Teddington where the tideway ends.  the situation in Shepperton might not have been much different but it probably would  have been better as the river would have overflowed further downstream because that is where the greater volume of water (river + incoming tide) would have been.  

[jamie92208]

Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me - if the barrier had not been raised the high tide would have come further upstream and met the flood water coming down - basically causing flooding in parts of London itself or around Teddington where the tideway ends.  the situation in Shepperton might not have been much different but it probably would  have been better as the river would have overflowed further downstream because that is where the greater volume of water (river + incoming tide) would have been.  

As far as i recall from a BBC report, they close the barrier at low tide so that the water can keep flowing down past Teddington rather than being stemmed and kept upstream by the rising tide.  the water is then released after High tide.

 

However I may have misunderstood the report.

 

Jamie

[10800]

I suspect what happens is that the Thames Barrier is raised whilst the tide is rising in order to keep tidal surges out of Central London.  A happy byproduct of this is that it allows more water to drain from the non-tidal Thames into the (lower level) tidal Thames, thus helping the situation at Shepperton etc.  When the tide is falling again the barrier is opened to let this out.

[Edwin_m]

That's what I recall reading too.  The difference it makes in water level upstream is a matter of a few inches. 

[Coombe Barton]

Why is this, interesting though it is, on the HS2 thread?

[Mike Storey]

Why is this, interesting though it is, on the HS2 thread?

 

The link to HS2 is the latest wheeze by protestors and opportunist MP's to suggest that HS2 funding would be better used for flood prevention. Perhaps as a pro-rail group of people (although I recognise there are some of our compadres who are very anti the project) it is good to understand such issues better than we already do, in order that we may deal with such suggestions from a more informed standpoint, when meeting them in our social, work or media circles. How we each choose to use our knowledge, whether for or against HS2, is entirely a matter of personal choice of course!

 

However, whatever the current technical arrangements of use of the Thames Barrier, and whatever effect, minor or major, it has on flooding upstream, the fact is that the Barrier is fast approaching its sell-by date for protecting London itself, as sea levels rise and tides rise higher. There may come some strong suggestions that HS2 funding should instead be used to upgrade/replace the Barrier earlier rather than later, which will not be cheap. I am no expert on what funding provisions have already been made for this (if any) and over what timescale (during early planning for 2012, East London potential flooding was a big issue at first, but was largely downgraded as a threat quite quickly for our timescales), but it would be as well to expect that argument.

[Re6/6]

Sir David Higgins talking a lot of sense: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26604074

 

Elsewhere on the BBC, the usual biased reporting was broadcast at 0530hrs on Radio 5's 'wake up to money' programme where an inept presenter allowed a representative of the 'Taxpayer's Alliance' time (about one minute) of uninterrupted ranting against the project with all the same old falsehoods and incorrect facts without any 'balanced' argument from any supporting views.

 

At least on R4's 'Today', Higgins was asked sensible and fairly informed questions. The least said about Nicky Campbell's 'tabloid style' questioning of Higgins the better, verging on the childish and patronizing. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I saw the Taxpayer Alliance guy (who looks as though he is only just about out of school) on morning TV. No sensible argument from him at all.

 

Yes HS2 will cost money. But it will increase economic activity, and therefore tax revenues, by an amount which is far greater. So it does not really cost anything at all.

 

It's the same decision-making process as that used by the Taxpayers' Alliance to justify employing the said spokesperson. Just that they got their decision wrong!

 

There seems to be (and I hope that I am right) a softening in the Labour rhetoric against HS2 in the last few days. I think that Sir David Higgins has been doing some work on Ed Balls.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I think the issue with Labour is more about how their views have been presented in the media, than any actual opposition to what is after all a scheme they started.

 

Note how the BBC article presents Ed Balls' statement from a few months ago (the no blank cheque one). It's presented as if he's opposing HS2 rather than supporting it. I reckon they've probably got wise to this, and are being more careful about what they say in case it gets misrepresented in the media.

Edited March 17, 2014 by pete_mcfarlane

[edcayton]

I saw the Taxpayer Alliance guy (who looks as though he is only just about out of school) on morning TV. No sensible argument from him at all.

 

Yes HS2 will cost money. But it will increase economic activity, and therefore tax revenues, by an amount which is far greater. So it does not really cost anything at all.

 

 

Firstly I don't think you will win any arguments by commenting on the guy's appearance.  Secondly, do you really think your second paragraph is a "sensible argument"?

 

Ed

[Joseph_Pestell]

Firstly I don't think you will win any arguments by commenting on the guy's appearance.  Secondly, do you really think your second paragraph is a "sensible argument"?

 

Ed

 

Ed, I don't care what he looks like. But on a serious national issue like this, I think that it helps if your spokesperson has accrued a bit of real world experience.

 

And yes, as per Mickey's comment, I do think that the second paragraph represents a cogent argument. Whether there is the money available to finance it (and where that money comes from) is quite another question.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I think the "it will raise more than it costs"  idea is the main arguement in favour of HS2 ...or any business activity for that matter......

 

IIRC one of the biggest elements of the "economic argument" has been time saved being translated into more work time being performed.

When this was roundly shot down in flames as largely nonsense, all they did was downgrade the computation factor to give a slightly lower benefit, but it still forms a central element of the "business case".

It still doesn't alter the fact that its still largely nonsense.

 

(p.s. I'm largely in favour of HS2 in principle, but I believe some of the economic arguments in favour are complete tosh.)

 

 

.

[Re6/6]

On the 6 o'clock news tonight the BBC still used the thoroughly discredited Institute for Economic Affairs who have a definite political agenda to put the 'anti' case,

 

Remember these were the people who quoted £90B as the cost, including both non-existant and unrelated projects. 

[Mike Storey]

IIRC one of the biggest elements of the "economic argument" has been time saved being translated into more work time being performed.

When this was roundly shot down in flames as largely nonsense, all they did was downgrade the computation factor to give a slightly lower benefit, but it still forms a central element of the "business case".

It still doesn't alter the fact that its still largely nonsense.

 

(p.s. I'm largely in favour of HS2 in principle, but I believe some of the economic arguments in favour are complete tosh.)

 

 

.

 

The reason such arguments are used is because there is a standard list of questions provided by the Treasury to assess any business case presented to Government. I have faced the same dilemma. If the person compiling the business case ignores the question, or states it is inapplicable, it results in a "negative" score on the Treasury's assessment.

 

The fact is that, in the case of HS2, if the right decision is to build a new line, primarily to increase overall capacity, the costs of making that a high speed route, as opposed to a conventional route, is these days marginal. The need NOT to install conventional lineside signalling catering for any type of train or loco, and all the immunisation required by that, plus the reduced need for gentle vertical alignment (to cope with lower powered traction, or very heavy trains) pretty well offsets the extra cost of easier alignments and upgraded OLE necessary for a higher speed route with largely standardised traction. The reduced journey times were more of a headline gathering exercise to instill public enthusiasm, but that may have backfired a little with some, who can only see costs, not benefits.

 

The issue in contention then, if the vast majority seem to have accepted that greater capacity is needed, is whether expansion of existing routes (or re-opening of old ones on Victorian alignments) is a more cost-effective way to achieve this. My decades of railway project management yell loudly that, in absolutely no way, can that be a better way to achieve the end result. But others, who have never built, or re-built, a railway, do appear to think they know better! 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

David Higgins was talking a lot today about a Trans-Pennine Liverpool - Hull axis.

How does this chime with the general North - South route of HS2?

Edited March 17, 2014 by Western Sunset

[melmerby]

The Midlands Today slot on BBC1 had an "anti" spokesperson with the argument against the latest news as "but they haven't taken inflation into account"

 

I ask you, where do they get them from?

 

Keith

[Reorte]

 

The issue in contention then, if the vast majority seem to have accepted that greater capacity is needed, is whether expansion of existing routes (or re-opening of old ones on Victorian alignments) is a more cost-effective way to achieve this. My decades of railway project management yell loudly that, in absolutely no way, can that be a better way to achieve the end result. But others, who have never built, or re-built, a railway, do appear to think they know better! 

Depends how you define "better" though (talking about the options, not knowing better). There's more to life than purely economic or practical considerations and I'm always wary about any argument that puts those so high as to be the only ones worth considering.

[chrisf]

I heard bits of Sir David Higgins yesterday.  Did I understand correctly that the  HS1-HS2 link is to be deleted?  If so, it is one of two things that will thwart the desires of those who would board a train in Leeds or Manchester and alight in Frankfurt or Paris.  The other is, of course the attitude of the UK Border Agency.  

 

Philip Haigh, lately Business Editor of RAIL, has commented in the latest issue about the contrast between the ease of international travel in mainland Europe and the airline-style regime imposed on Eurostar travellers.  In the context of the legal requirement for users of the Channel Tunnel to be searched for explosives and the like, he makes the telling point that the only damage to the Tunnel so far has been caused by burning lorries.  As the law stands, the extension of Anglo-European passenger services beyond its present terminals will require nice costly border controls and I cannot see the climate changing sufficiently to warrant joining HS1 with HS2. Part of Europe, you say? Hmmm.

 

Chris.

[Mike Storey]

I heard bits of Sir David Higgins yesterday.  Did I understand correctly that the  HS1-HS2 link is to be deleted?  If so, it is one of two things that will thwart the desires of those who would board a train in Leeds or Manchester and alight in Frankfurt or Paris.  The other is, of course the attitude of the UK Border Agency.  

 

Philip Haigh, lately Business Editor of RAIL, has commented in the latest issue about the contrast between the ease of international travel in mainland Europe and the airline-style regime imposed on Eurostar travellers.  In the context of the legal requirement for users of the Channel Tunnel to be searched for explosives and the like, he makes the telling point that the only damage to the Tunnel so far has been caused by burning lorries.  As the law stands, the extension of Anglo-European passenger services beyond its present terminals will require nice costly border controls and I cannot see the climate changing sufficiently to warrant joining HS1 with HS2. Part of Europe, you say? Hmmm.

 

Chris.

 

I read that Sir David said that the current design for the link was "sub-optimal", not that there should be no link. I believe this refers to the capacity issues at St Pancras and at the approaches to St Pancras and along the North London Line. I concur. The additional journey time and potential for disruption would make many people simply avoid it. (This has precedence in the regular through services between the North West/Midlands and Southern/South East England, tried in BR days. Very few people used these for long distance, as it was quicker to change in London, due to the slow timings around the WLL). There is a faster route to connect the two, as mapped out way back at the start of planning, but it would not be cheap. Knowing Sir David, he would not have said this unless he had a Plan B, but he was told to look for savings and that was one of the obvious ones.

 

TGV through services from Lille to destinations south and west of Paris (other than EuroDisney and the occasional ski trains) have not proved popular, partly due to oddly unhelpful scheduling, but also to relatively long journey times, due to the circumnavigation around Paris. They tend to be only once a day in each direction (or even once a week). There should be a decent market for people with heavy luggage, mobility problems and/or with young children, but this has rarely been sufficiently large to pay its way. SNCF continues to try - a Limoges/Lille service started recently, but the times are so inconvenient, we never used it. I think there is also a new one down from Lille to Nimes/Montpellier, but I have not seen much news on it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I heard bits of Sir David Higgins yesterday.  Did I understand correctly that the  HS1-HS2 link is to be deleted?  If so, it is one of two things that will thwart the desires of those who would board a train in Leeds or Manchester and alight in Frankfurt or Paris.  The other is, of course the attitude of the UK Border Agency.  

 

Philip Haigh, lately Business Editor of RAIL, has commented in the latest issue about the contrast between the ease of international travel in mainland Europe and the airline-style regime imposed on Eurostar travellers.  In the context of the legal requirement for users of the Channel Tunnel to be searched for explosives and the like, he makes the telling point that the only damage to the Tunnel so far has been caused by burning lorries.  As the law stands, the extension of Anglo-European passenger services beyond its present terminals will require nice costly border controls and I cannot see the climate changing sufficiently to warrant joining HS1 with HS2. Part of Europe, you say? Hmmm.

 

Chris.

 

Makes you wonder what the arrangements will be if Scotland votes for devolution. A large new station at Gretna perhaps with all passengers having to detrain for passport examination?

[GoingUnderground]

The BBC, no obvious friend of HS2, say on their web site "

Sir David questioned plans to link HS2 to the HS1 Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link at St Pancras.

He said: "The current proposed HS1-HS2 link is, I believe, sub-optimal and should be reconsidered."

"It has functional limitations. Let's scrap this, it's a £700m saving."

There should be a study to look at other methods of linking HS1 and HS2, he said, ranging from a whole interchange at Euston and St Pancras through to "a more ambitious high-speed link".

 

To me this says that the current plans for Euston and the HS1-HS2 link are not worth implementing as they stand, and should be redesigned, not that there shouldn't be a link.

[Mike Storey]

Makes you wonder what the arrangements will be if Scotland votes for devolution. A large new station at Gretna perhaps with all passengers having to detrain for passport examination?

 

Depends whether Scotland

 

a) is allowed into the EU

b) is allowed to adopt the Schengen agreement

c) is able to afford their section of High Speed line by then, given that their primary focus continues to be a high speed link between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

In the absence of (a) or (b), I would imagine the arrangements on current services post-independence (should that occur) will be quite interesting, especially on the sleepers if HMRC refuse to do on-board checks. It would also require the diversion of air traffic at all the major airports into terminals with Border controls and customs. I can see the A1 and the west coast motorway getting a bit clogged - all the B roads would suddenly get very busy! Let's hope some more practical arrangements are adopted! Mind you, the Duty Free trade could get lucrative if you are regarded as travelling outside the EU. What a strange world we may be about to enter.

[phil-b259]

David Higgins comments on the HS1 - HS2 link are

 

"It is the most cost-effective solution for linking the two networks. But it is an imperfect compromise because of the effect it would have on existing passenger and freight services and the local community. It would also use up HS2 capacity that could be better used on services to more areas, such as North Wales. The HS2 platforms at Euston will be a short distance from those at HS1, and one stop on the Underground. That is the equivalent of transferring from one terminal to another at Heathrow. I believe the Government should, therefore, consider whether the cost – at around £700 million – is good value or whether it would be better to consider an alternative, which would deliver the benefits of a link without compromising existing services."

 

Instead he wants phase 1 to be extended up to Crewe and use the money there instead - and idea which strikes me as elemently sensible. (Lets face it pigs will fly before the Eurosceptic and immigrant scared British public will allow the necessary changes to allow through services to the continent)

 

"The existing Phase One plans contained in the hybrid Bill will clearly be transformative. By separating long-distance passenger traffic from freight and local services, they will allow more services across the board, providing real benefit to commuters, a faster and more reliable service for long-distance travellers, and more room for freight. That extra capacity will be created both on HS2 itself and on the existing network. But those benefits could be spread further north sooner if Phase Two were accelerated and the line were extended to a new regional transport hub at Crewe by 2027, six years earlier than planned. This would bring together road and rail services for the region as a whole, allowing faster services sooner to Manchester, the rest of the North West and to Scotland.

Although final decisions must await the outcome of the recent consultation, I believe it is the right strategic answer for the long term and, by combining road and rail services in one interchange, it would also act as a real agent of change in that region. It would be for the Government and Parliament to decide how that might be achieved in terms of legislation, but I do not believe this needs to be a lengthy process. These improvements, in my view, are a bigger priority and will deliver more benefits to more people across the country than the proposed HS1-HS2 link"